On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2011 10:57 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> One issue in this is the contact information we place in RFCs. Since RFCs are
>> forever, it sort of assumes that email addresses are forever, and at least in
>> my case they're not. A service that we could somehow (ISOC, Secretariat,
>> whatever) supply would be a contact service, in essence a set of aliases that
>> IETF participants can easily update and control. The big issue would be spam
>> control.
>>> What interesting timing...
>> Apparently, we have a version of that already running. I discovered it yesterday.
>> One of my co-authors has an old address that doesn't work, but errata keep coming in and, therefore, not getting to him.
>> I sent a note asking if he could get mail forwarded to his current address and Alice's response to my co-author was:
>> "your email address has been updated to {xxx} for any future automated mail regarding errata in RFCs that you authored"
>> I was impressed to see the scope of the change, across "all" RFCs, but didn't ask for details.
>> One can easily imagine making this more automated, although that would introduce some significant security issues.
Well, yes. The simplistic approach would be to provide author at ietf.org email aliases that would forward to the current address. Or not...
> d/
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest